Apple shareholders get 'say on pay' Apple's shareholders will, after all, have the opportunity to weigh in on executive compensation. In a brief announcement on Monday, Apple acknowledged an error in how it tallied a recent vote about granting shareholders input on executive pay. The original count had incorrectly recorded abstentions as "No" votes and the …
The problem is that its really in a CEO's best interest to pursue short term profit even its its setting his company or the entire economy up for an eventual fall.
Maybe these guys with the $10 mil compensation packages should be given $500,000 a year plus 9 Mill in performance based bonuses held in escrow for 10 years.
"Apple's shareholders will, after all, have the opportunity to weigh in on executive compensation."
Imagine that. The company's owners actually want a say in how much their employees are paid? My, what a novel idea. Quick, someone patent it as a "business method" before Apple does (that is, if IBM hasn't already patented it).
"The problem is that its really in a CEO's best interest to pursue short term profit even its its setting his company or the entire economy up for an eventual fall."
Is it?
I imagine you have to work quite hard to be a CEO, and I imagine that there's a lot more pride (and ego) involved in the long term position of the company than there is interest in a short term gain. Also, any CEO with such a short term view is very likely unfit to work as one, and would have made crap decisions irrespective of whether the motivation was a single smash and grab on company coffers.
Anyhow, size of salary aside, are CEO's that different in their motivations to you or I? I imagine that the attitude towards a paycheque aren't that different at the top of the tree to at a more junior level, i.e. "This cheque is great, but I prefer the next one, and the one after that, and after that etc." Rich is, after all, a relative term.
Actually, it is a rather radical idea by modern standards. The actual power wielded by shareholders, even voting unanimously, is much less than one might think. All real power is wielded by the directors, who can, in most cases, ignore shareholder votes if they conflict with the board's idea of what is best for the business (i.e. what is best for them and their CEO chums).
You can, of course, seek to replace the board, but it can be a long-term and expensive process in cases where the board can only be replaced piecemeal (i.e. one third every year). And let's not even mention companies where the existing board members consent is required to admit any new member (which is legal in certain jurisdictions).
The regulatory environment for banking is not the only problem in the economy at the moment. A fairly thorough overhaul of corporate law is long overdue as well.
"I imagine you have to work quite hard to be a CEO, and I imagine that there's a lot more pride (and ego) involved in the long term position of the company than there is interest in a short term gain. Also, any CEO with such a short term view is very likely unfit to work as one, and would have made crap decisions irrespective of whether the motivation was a single smash and grab on company coffers."
I'm sorry, really, I mean no disrespect, but I can't stop laughing. Do you pay attention to business at all? Incompetent CEOs are rewarded extremely well, and they very often look short-term only. Look at MCI WorldCom and Enron with their multi-billion-dollar accounting fraud, all for short-term gain. As for whether an incompetent CEO who is unfit to work as one will make it in the business world, I have four words: Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman. Let's not forget that Carly was FIRED from her job as CEO of HP for being incompetent and running the company into the ground, not to mention the various illegal acts she sanctioned. What did she get for her incompetence? A severance package worth close to 21 MILLION dollars. Don't kid yourself -- incompetence and ineptitude are rewarded quite well at the top.
As for motivation, my motivation is quite different than that of most CEOs. Most CEOs will do anything (literally anything, regardless of legality) to make money, and are quite happy to lie, cheat, and steal in the process. I believe that money should be earned. I refuse to lie, cheat, and steal. I'd be much richer if I was willing to do so, but I don't, and I have a feeling a lot of the other readers here are the same way (though certainly not all).
The problem with a flat statement like "And CEO pay is, indeed, reaching ludicrous levels." and .. "seeing as how their average compensation totaled $10.4m", from the point of view of the shareholders is that there are some CEOs who are worth every penny of that and more (but, admittedly, way fewer than those who *think* they are worth it). I would argue on the basis of historical record, that Steve Jobs was one, something I think that even Apple-haters would have to agree.
To get from a place where Apple was visibly circling the drain and seemed headed to a future of, at best, irrelevance to its current enviable position of dominating several markets (iPod, iTunes) and being in a strong (iPhone), or at least resurgent (Macbook, iMac), position in most of the rest is an extraordinary accomplishment. Moreover, it is an accomplishment that are well worth the Gulfstream jet, all the options, not to mention the lavish $1 annual Salary that Jobs has been taking home since 1997.
If the above is not sufficiently convincing, consider the following: Apple shares fell by about ~10% upon the announcement of Jobs' medical leave of absence. Since Apple is capitalized at around $100 Billion, that alone is roughly $10 Billion worth of difference to Apple shareholders, a sum that dwarfs the total compensation paid to Jobs, directly or indirectly.
Given that this is a target rich environment for finding CEO (and their associated management teams) who have "added" negative value, in massive quantity, to the company they have been running (AIG, Washington Mutual, and Northern Rock are just a few of the instances which come to mind), it seems rather inappropriate to select one of the rare CEOs (and associated management teams) who have been demonstrably worth the money as a poster boy for CEO excess.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
